I know you’ve heard the rumor. I think I’ve heard it roughly a thousand times, and I suspect that the average UMass student has as well. It’s the sort of rumor that might make even the most apathetic citizen sit up and pay attention.

The rumor is that the draft is coming back. What a scary word that is: draft. And that’s exactly why it’s being thrown around: to scare people. The news wings of CBS and MTV, both subdivisions of the left-leaning Viacom Corporation, have done stories on the issue. Unfortunately, we can’t count on either of these “esteemed” news agencies to tell us the whole truth. We can, however, count on them to propagandize for the Democratic Party.

There’s some truth to the rumor. Actually, there’s a bill in Congress that’s been bogged in committee for almost two years, called Universal National Service Act of 2003. In fact, it’s a degree more severe than a draft, in the sense that there is no lottery system. It requires two years of mandatory military service, for both men and women. There will be alternative service for conscientious objectors, but no deferment for college students. An official summary of its contents is available on the World Wide Web at thomas.loc.gov

It reads as follows:

“It is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Requires induction into national service by the President. Sets forth provisions governing: (1) induction deferments, postponements, and exemptions, including exemption of a conscientious objector from military service that includes combatant training; and (2) discharge following national service.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.”

When it comes to the idea of drafting women and college students, nothing could be scarier to middle America, to young voters or to their parents.

There’s just one problem – it’s not Bush’s idea, and the media seems unwilling to tell us whose idea it really is. Actually, the bill belongs to Representative Charles Rangel, a liberal Democrat. It has fourteen co-sponsors, all anti-war Democrats. On the other side, there is a bill in the house that would abolish the Selective Service System entirely. The bill’s sponsor is Ron Paul, a moderate Texas Republican. Co-sponsors include members of both parties.

You wouldn’t know that if you read a recent Associated Press article by Terence Hunt. The article made reference to Kerry’s reaction to outright rumors that the president might bring the draft back, without a single reference to the existence of Rangel’s bill.

CBS News did a segment on the topic as well. The entire story revolved around a nervous mom who is concerned with “mass emails” circulating “among worried parents.” In other words, CBS now does news stories on rumors, without a single reference to the tangible Rangel bill.

The email admits to being third-hand information from an anonymous source – “Someone I know forwarded this to me, it was forwarded to them from someone they know who has a friend that works in the dept of defense.” It reads: “There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program’s initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 – just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public’s attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.”

You might think that CBS News would point out who sponsored these bills, and the absurdity of fifteen of Congress’s most liberal anti-war Democrats acting in collusion with the president, but of course they didn’t. The focus of the story, a worried mother named Beverly Cocco, is presented as a Bush supporter. She says that she might change her vote according to the fictitious draft “issue.” The reporter says that “Beverly is not buying it,” referring to Bush’s assurances that he would not reinstitute the draft. The reporter asks her if she would vote for a Democrat, if it would mean avoiding the draft. She says that she would vote for Howdy-Doody, if it meant that she could keep her sons at home.

The fictitious draft “issue” is a plus for Bush, but the casual viewer might not understand that from CBS’s insinuations to the contrary. For the record, both presidential candidates and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly rejected the idea of a draft. According to the website of the draft board, www.sss.gov, there are no plans in place to reinstate the draft.

More importantly, it’s best to do away with whispers that Bush is plotting some sort of post-election, middle-of-the-night executive order to reinstate the draft. It’s nonsense, for the simple reason that only Congress has that authority. Bush does not.

Rangel’s bill is destined to fail, and he knows that. Rangel has written an excellent editorial on his legislation, and he makes it very clear that this legislation is not based on support for the war, but rather based in its opposition. He believes that minorities, as well as poor and rural whites, fill a disproportionate section of our military’s enlisted ranks. Meanwhile, white upper and middle-class folks go to college. I couldn’t agree more. I just don’t think that the draft is the right way to change this terrible situation. If you agree with Rangel, and you’re a middle class white kid, then I suggest that you drop out immediately and enlist in the interest of fairness to minorities and the poor.

So please, if you oppose the draft, then write a letter to Charles Rangel. Write a letter to your congressman. Or you can just vote and boot the draft scare-mongers out of office.

Ben Duffy is a Collegian columnist.